Category Archives: DOJ, DC and inside the Beltway

U.S. No Longer Land of the Free

Posted on by

Of course we all know this already, however you can also read a book titled ‘American Coup’, author is William Arkin. Within the first one hundred pages Arkin lays out the proven facts of why America is already under martial law, a term that has been battered around for several years. Just consider that yet another set of authors, Harvey Silvergate and Alan Dershowtiz wrote a book titled ‘Three Felonies a Day’ explaining how the Feds target the innocent.

The point is we have lawyers that are speaking out and we must listen.

So today there was a four hour long house hearing by the Rules Committee where Jonathan Turley, a Democrat, but more importantly a Constitutional professor, practicing lawyer and speech giver testified. His presentation was remarkable.

It is important for this article to know he wrote a blog piece a few months ago that is a must read for everyone.

10 Reasons The U.S. Is No Longer The Land Of The Free

1, January 15, 2012 by jonathanturley

Below is today’s column in the Sunday Washington Post.  The column addresses how the continued rollbacks on civil liberties in the United States conflicts with the view of the country as the land of the free.  If we are going to adopt Chinese legal principles, we should at least have the integrity to adopt one Chinese proverb: “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names.”  We seem as a country to be in denial as to the implications of these laws and policies.  Whether we are viewed as a free country with authoritarian inclinations or an authoritarian nation with free aspirations (or some other hybrid definition), we are clearly not what we once were. [Update: in addition to the column below, a later column in the Washington Post explores more closely the loss of free speech rights in the West].

Every year, the State Department issues reports on individual rights in other countries, monitoring the passage of restrictive laws and regulations around the world. Iran, for example, has been criticized for denying fair public trials and limiting privacy, while Russia has been taken to task for undermining due process. Other countries have been condemned for the use of secret evidence and torture.

Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own — the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence. In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?

While each new national security power Washington has embraced was controversial when enacted, they are often discussed in isolation. But they don’t operate in isolation. They form a mosaic of powers under which our country could be considered, at least in part, authoritarian. Americans often proclaim our nation as a symbol of freedom to the world while dismissing nations such as Cuba and China as categorically unfree. Yet, objectively, we may be only half right. Those countries do lack basic individual rights such as due process, placing them outside any reasonable definition of “free,” but the United States now has much more in common with such regimes than anyone may like to admit.

These countries also have constitutions that purport to guarantee freedoms and rights. But their governments have broad discretion in denying those rights and few real avenues for challenges by citizens — precisely the problem with the new laws in this country.

The list of powers acquired by the U.S. government since 9/11 puts us in rather troubling company.

Assassination of U.S. citizens

President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)

Indefinite detention

Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While Sen. Carl Levin insisted the bill followed existing law “whatever the law is,” the Senate specifically rejected an amendment that would exempt citizens and the Administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal court. The Administration continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for “prolonged detention.”)

Arbitrary justice

The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)

Warrantless searches

The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use “national security letters” to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)

Secret evidence

The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security — a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government’s actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.

War crimes

The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)

Secret court

The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)

Immunity from judicial review

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)

Continual monitoring of citizens

The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. It is not defending the power before the Supreme Court — a power described by Justice Anthony Kennedy as “Orwellian.” (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)

Extraordinary renditions

The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers — including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.

These new laws have come with an infusion of money into an expanded security system on the state and federal levels, including more public surveillance cameras, tens of thousands of security personnel and a massive expansion of a terrorist-chasing bureaucracy.

Some politicians shrug and say these increased powers are merely a response to the times we live in. Thus, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) could declare in an interview last spring without objection that “free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.” Of course, terrorism will never “surrender” and end this particular “war.”

Other politicians rationalize that, while such powers may exist, it really comes down to how they are used. This is a common response by liberals who cannot bring themselves to denounce Obama as they did Bush. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), for instance, has insisted that Congress is not making any decision on indefinite detention: “That is a decision which we leave where it belongs — in the executive branch.”

And in a signing statement with the defense authorization bill, Obama said he does not intend to use the latest power to indefinitely imprison citizens. Yet, he still accepted the power as a sort of regretful autocrat.

An authoritarian nation is defined not just by the use of authoritarian powers, but by the ability to use them. If a president can take away your freedom or your life on his own authority, all rights become little more than a discretionary grant subject to executive will.

The framers lived under autocratic rule and understood this danger better than we do. James Madison famously warned that we needed a system that did not depend on the good intentions or motivations of our rulers: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

Benjamin Franklin was more direct. In 1787, a Mrs. Powel confronted Franklin after the signing of the Constitution and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?” His response was a bit chilling: “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”

Since 9/11, we have created the very government the framers feared: a government with sweeping and largely unchecked powers resting on the hope that they will be used wisely.

The indefinite-detention provision in the defense authorization bill seemed to many civil libertarians like a betrayal by Obama. While the president had promised to veto the law over that provision, Levin, a sponsor of the bill, disclosed on the Senate floor that it was in fact the White House that approved the removal of any exception for citizens from indefinite detention.

Dishonesty from politicians is nothing new for Americans. The real question is whether we are lying to ourselves when we call this country the land of the free.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University.

Washington Post (Sunday) January 15, 2012

 

So Sue Him or Impeach Him, that is the Question

Posted on by

Alright, several things are in play in Washington DC when it comes to the Federal government operating in full-blown lawlessness. So, words like impeach, treason and high crimes and misdemeanors have flying in corridors. The question is, what is the solution to stop the destruction?

Many pundits are pushing back on any aggressive solution to stop the fraud, collusion and law-breaking of top stakeholders in the Barack Obama regime, none more so than Barack Obama himself, where is has without a doubt abused the power of the office of the Presidency using in fact his pen and phone.

Speaker of the House, John Boehner has announced his intention to sue Barack Obama and on July 16, the early stages of the process begins. While Barack Obama pokes fun at the intent to sue him, Boehner is serious and frankly after 5 1/2 years of proven abuse in all corners of the Obama regime, it is time to take a bold move.

Speaker Boehner has engaged some heavy-hitters that are Constitutional lawyers, none more so than that of Jonathan Turley, Professor of Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School who is a supporter of Barack Obama’s policies but fully is opposed to his extra-legal/Constitutional methods to achieve those ends.

Experts Support House’s Action to Defend the Constitution

July 15, 2014|Speaker Boehner’s Press Office

Tomorrow, the House Committee on Rules will conduct a hearing on the House’s lawsuit against President Obama’s executive overreach, specifically, his unilateral rewrites of the health care law’s employer mandate. As Speaker Boehner said, “this isn’t about Republicans versus Democrats; it’s about the Legislative Branch versus the Executive Branch, and above all protecting the Constitution.”

Among those scheduled to testify at the hearing are Jonathan Turley, Professor of Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School, and Elizabeth Price Foley, Professor of Law at Florida International University College of Law. Excerpts of their prepared statements to the committee, along with links to their full testimony, are below.

Turley:

[S]ome of President Obama’s statements come strikingly close to assertions by King James I that he could apply “natural reason” to the alteration, and even the suspension, of federal laws. … There may be good reasons for such changes. However, this is not a question of what to do but how should such changes be made and, more importantly, who should make them? Some of the changes unilaterally ordered by the President were previously sought from Congress. After Congress did not approve such changes, President Obama announced that he would go it alone. He proceeded to order the changes that he felt Congress should have made. He simply resolved the division with Congress by ordering changes on his terms as a majority of one. There is no license in the Madisonian system to “go it alone.” …

Rather than continue this unresolved and worsening controversy over the separation of powers, the House is seeking authority to bring the matter to the courts. That is precisely where such lingering questions should be resolved. …

Some of the changes ordered by President Obama did, in my view, cross the constitutional line in violation of the Separation of Powers. …

The Obama Administration has advanced constitutional arguments on presidential power that can only be described as both extreme and largely devoid of limiting principles that characterize our constitutional system. …

What we are witnessing today is a crisis of faith in our system despite its unparalleled and proven success. People have grown impatient with the constraints of the constitutional system, constraints which can seem quaint or antiquated when compared to pressing problems of health care or immigration or the environment. It is tempting to embrace rule by a single person who offers to govern alone to get things done. However, this is the very Siren’s call that our Founders warned us to resist. We remain a nation of laws and we have a court system designed to resolve such controversies. That is precisely where this authorization would take us and it is where these questions should be answered.

Foley:

[W]hat Congress wants is what the Constitution entitles it to:  faithful execution of the law by the executive branch, so that the American people can make accurate assessments about the law.  If the constitutional duty of faithful execution is fulfilled, the law goes into effect as written—both good parts and bad parts—and the American people are fully informed about whether it works, and what may need fixing. …

There is a good reason why the founders granted “all” lawmaking power to Congress, and not the unitary Executive: As history teaches us, it is not wise to entrust the power of lawmaking—and its inherent potential to negatively impact individual liberty—to a single person.

When a law—even a complex and poorly drafted one—is faithfully executed, it enables fully informed consent, and a robust debate in the legislative branch. …

By unilaterally waiving, suspending or delaying the most unworkable, problematic portions of the ACA, the President makes this robust, pluralistic political debate and compromise impossible. Yet it is precisely by having a complex law go into effect as written that the political process—democracy itself—can function, and compromises regarding how to fix its problems can be achieved.

The House of Representatives is working very hard to regain legally and Constitutionally the power granted to them. They are seeking advise, remedies and perhaps even legislation to reassert that which has been dismissed by Cabinet secretaries and the White House. Here is a hearing where Turley speaks truth to power.

One may fault Speaker Boehner for many reasons, however a threshold has been crossed such that he is seeking a remedy. It may be a fool’s errand yet, it does send a shot across the bow of the White House, which is long over-due.

 

 

What Leadership and Defense Looks Like

Posted on by

What Netanyahu needs to say is posted below.

http://allenbwest.com/2014/07/loved-people-much-hate-speech-netanyahu-give/

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu just made the following speech in front of the Knesset that we wish would have actually been given:

To Ismail Haniya, and the leaders and operatives of Hamas: We, the people of Israel, owe you a huge debt of gratitude. You have succeeded where we have failed.

You stole three of our most precious children, and slaughtered them in cold blood. But before we could discover the horrible truth, we had 18 days of pain and anxiety while we search for them, during which our nation united as never before, in prayer, in hopes, in mutual support.

And now, as you continue to launch deadly missiles indiscriminately , intended to maim and murder as many civilians as possible, while you take cowardly refuge behind your own civilians – you continue to inspire us to hold strongly on to our newly discovered unity. Whatever disputes we Jews may have with each other, we now know that we have one common goal: we will defeat you.

But we are offering you now one last chance. Within 24 hours , all rocket fire and I mean all rocket fire – will cease. Completely. Forever. I give you formal notice that our tanks are massed at the Gaza border, with artillery and air support at the ready. We have already dropped leaflets over the northern parts of the Gaza strip warning civilians of our impending arrival, and that they should evacuate southward, forthwith. If you fail to meet our ultimatum, we are coming in, and, with God’s help this time we will not leave. Every centimeter of land that we conquer will be annexed to Israel, so that there will never be another attack launched at our civilians from there.

Even so, we will continue to keep the door open to allow you to surrender gracefully. The moment you announce that you are laying down arms, we will halt our advance, and there we will draw our new borders. If you continue to attack our citizens,we will continue to roll southwards, driving you out of territory that you will never again contaminate with your evil presence.

It pains me deeply that your civilians will be made homeless. But we did not choose this war; you did. And if our choice is between allowing our citizens to be targeted mercilessly by your genocidal savagery, versus turning your civilians into refugees, I regret that we must choose the latter. If only you loved your people as much as you hate ours, this war would never have happened.

To the rest of the world: Israel has tired of your ceaseless chidings that we should “show restraint”. When you have your entire population under constant missile fire from an implacable enemy whose stated goal is the murder every man, woman and children your land, then you may come and talk to us about” restraint”. Until then, we respectfully suggest that you keep your double standards to yourselves. This time, Hamas has gone too far, and we will do whatever we have to in order to protect our population.

Hamas, once again, I thank you for bringing our people together with such clarity of mind and unity of purpose. The people of Israel do not fear the long road ahead.

Am Yisrael Chai.

Given the Prime Ministers presentation, what will the coming days look like? Below is what Israel could face and for sure is prepared to face. This is the exact reason that leaders from other countries are working to broker a cease fire/peace agreement in haste. The cease fire agreement presented by Egypt was accepted by Israel, but within an hour it was completely dismissed by Hamas. So, in coming days matters in Gaza will be more aggressive.

 

Israeli ground operation in Gaza increasingly likely, risking unintended escalation involving Syria and Hizbullah

Key Points

  • Hamas is seeking to draw Israel into a ground invasion of Gaza, as the group’s military wing seeks to re-establish itself as the key decision-maker, and to return the movement to its origins as a resistance organisation.
  • The Hamas-Israel conflict is unlikely to end in the coming week or two, and a ground invasion in which Israeli troops will be vulnerable to ambush and anti-tank rockets is increasingly probable.
  • Frequent rocket fire is likely to target key Israeli assets such as ports and airports, which will probably force their shut down. Risks of actual physical damage will be strongly mitigated by the Iron Dome missile defence system, but will increase political pressure for a ground invasion. There will be a high risk of a three-front war if Hizbullah attempts to relieve pressure on Hamas by attacking Israeli positions along the Golan Heights and Shebaa farms, or firing rockets from south Lebanon.

EVENT

Hamas appears to be seeking to draw Israel into a ground invasion of Gaza, in which Hamas calculates it can inflict heavy casualties on Israel. However, this risks an unintended escalation that draws Syria and Hizbullah into the fray.

Hamas’s military wing, the Ezz Eddine al-Qassam Brigades, on 8 July sent a seaborne unit to attack an Israeli position in Askhalon, southern Israel; and fired rockets against Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport and against Jerusalem, which were intercepted by Iron Dome anti-missile defence system.

IHS had assessed that Hamas does not desire an escalation at a time when it is besieged by Egypt and has just reconciled with President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah Movement. However, it appears that the military wing of Hamas is seeking an escalation with Israel in an attempt to force Israel and Egypt to end the siege of Gaza and restore Hamas’s credibility as a resistance movement, as they perceive that the political processes of peace with Israel and reconciliation with Fatah have failed. An IHS source claims that Hamas political chief Khaled Meshal has lost control over the militant arm, and that he was not aware of the military wing’s intent to launch rockets against central Israel or of the 12 June kidnapping and subsequent killing of three teenage Israeli settlers.

For its part, Israel on 8 July authorised the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) to call up to 40,000 reservists, and conducted hundreds of air raids on Gaza. It would take Israel two to three days to recruit the reservists. The exact number of reservists it calls in will be the key indicator of Israel’s intent to launch a ground invasion.

Hamas emulating Hizbullah

During the 1996 Israel-Hizbullah conflict, Hizbullah succeeded in imposing new rules on Israel, forcing the latter to accept that the militant group would retaliate against attacks on Lebanese civilians by attacking Israeli civilians. Hizbullah’s objective was to sideline civilians and change the nature of the conflict with Israel into a war of attrition waged by its guerrilla arm against the IDF in southern Lebanon. For Hizbullah, the 1996 conflict succeeded in forcing Israel to limit its retaliation options against Hizbullah, and, despite a ceasefire being agreed, fighting continued and many Israeli soldiers were killed or wounded until Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000.

Despite the loss of life, each conflict with Israel ended with Hizbullah expanding its arsenal, improving the sophistication of its forces, and expanding the set of targets that it could attack in Israel, as well as the number, range and firing rate of its rockets.

Hamas is seeking to draw Israel into a ground invasion into Gaza, as it calculates that it can impose a high number of military casualties on Israel using ambushes against dismounted infantry and Kornet missiles against armour. Moreover, Hamas probably assesses that a ground invasion would be an opportunity to capture Israeli soldiers, which can then be used to negotiate prisoner exchanges and the easing of the blockade by Israel and Egypt.

Hamas calculates that by expanding the range of its rockets, it can impose significant economic damage on Israel by forcing its civilians into shelters, ports to shut down for fear of ships being hit by wayward rockets, and airports to close, while at the same time disrupting the mid-year tourism season. This, in Hamas’s view, compensates for Israel’s disproportionate ability to inflict damage on infrastructure and private properties and its ability to impose a very high number of casualties, both military and civilians. Hamas is extremely unlikely to have taken the escalatory steps of launching a raid on Ashkalon and firing rockets at central Israel without Iranian assurances that Iran would rearm the group and help it rebuild its capabilities after this ongoing round of conflict ends, as it did following the 2008 and 2012 conflicts.

Israel’s perspective

The Israeli military sees the need to regularly reduce the capability of Israel’s Arab rivals through frequent, limited military confrontations at a time of its choosing in which the IDF overwhelms its foes with its firepower. However, Hizbullah and Hamas have succeeded in building up their capability after each conflict with Israel. This led Israel to attempt to destroy Hizbullah entirely in the 2006 conflict, an objective it failed to achieve partly due to its heavy reliance on airpower.

Israel fears that a success in the P5+1-Iran nuclear negotiations, at least by the end of 2014 if not in the coming weeks, would allow Iran to significantly boost the funding of Hamas and Hizbullah, and to recreate a similar movement in Syria. As such, there is a high probability that Israel would calculate that it needs to weaken Hizbullah and Syria ahead of the conclusion of the negotiations. An Israeli war with Syria and Hizbullah would inflict heavy damage against Israel due to Syria and Hizbullah’s ability to fire a high number of rockets. However, Israel would probably calculate that by severely damaging the Syrian and Lebanese armies, it would force Hizbullah into a longer war against the Sunnis, which Israel would use to its advantage. Moreover, Israeli officials have regularly said that a war with Hizbullah is a question of when, not if.

Outliers

In the increasingly likely event of a ground invasion by the IDF against Gaza, there will be a high risk of Hizbullah choosing to relieve pressure on Hamas by conducting attacks on Israel’s northern border, either in the Golan Heights or in Lebanon itself. IHS assesses that Hizbullah was probably responsible for an improvised explosive device (IED) attack south of the Golan’s Majdal Shams in March 2014, to which Israel responded by shelling Syrian army positions. Although Hizbullah most likely does not wish to fight on two fronts as it is engaged in a war on the side of the Syrian army, and increasingly so in Iraq, it will probably calculate that Israel does not wish to fight a two-front war either. This risks drawing both sides into an escalation that neither side wants but that is based on the two sides misreading one another’s strategic intentions, and raises the risk of a four-way conflict involving the Syrian military’s missile forces, Hizbullah, Hamas, and Israel.

FORECAST

Hamas’s escalation makes it unlikely that Israel would be able to avoid a ground invasion of Gaza, despite its evident reluctance, although it will attempt to limit this to attacks on Gaza’s fringes, and will seek to avoid being drawn in deeply into Gazan territory. However, Hamas is likely to fire its longer-range rockets, such as the Buraq-70 and the Fajr-5, from deep within Gaza in order to force Israel’s hand. This would bring Israeli targets such as Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem, including ports and airports there, into range.

Hamas is likely to be able to fire up to around 10 missiles per day towards central Israel, and the port cities of Askhelon and Haifa. The risk of damage is strongly mitigated by the Iron Dome. However, Iron Dome in southern Israel risks being overwhelmed by the intensity of the rocket fire: on 8 July, Hamas and other groups fired up to 80 missiles in a matter of minutes. However, this risk will be very low around Haifa and Tel Aviv, against which Hamas is almost certainly unable to sustain this kind of firing rate.

Moreover, in the event of a ground invasion against Gaza leads to a high number of Israeli military casualties, there will be a severe risk of lightly armed Israeli settlers attacking nearby Palestinian communities in the West Bank, and of attacks by lightly armed Israeli citizens against Israeli Arabs in Haifa, Nazareth, and East Jerusalem. This will raise civil unrest risks throughout Israel, as well as the risk of Palestinian protesters in the West Bank attempting to breach the Barrier Wall that separates the West Bank from Israel proper.

Last, although Israel and Hizbullah will both seek to avoid a two-front war, there is a risk that Hizbullah action against Israel aimed at relieving pressure on Hamas would lead to a broader conflagration, as a result of Hizbullah miscalculating and of Israel seeking to weaken Hizbullah ahead of a final Iran-P5+1 agreement.

Related articles:

Cease Fire Agreement, Not so Much

Posted on by

Since the start of Operation Protective Edge, over 1,081 rockets have been fired towards Israel. Of them 845 hit Israel and 191 have been intercepted by the Iron Dome missile defense system. The IDF has targeted over 1,576 terror targets, with both naval and aerial capabilities.

Barack Obama praises this agreement, yet it has no teeth and is one-sided. Remember there was a cease fire agreement on November of 2012.

Egypt proposes cease-fire between Israel, Hamas

JERUSALEM — Egypt presented a cease-fire plan Monday to end a week of heavy fighting between Israel and Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip that has left at least 185 people dead, and both sides said they were seriously considering the proposal.

The late-night offer by Egypt marked the first sign of a breakthrough in international efforts to end the conflict.

Hamas’ top leader in Gaza confirmed there was “diplomatic movement,” while Israel’s policy-making Security Cabinet was set to discuss the proposal early Tuesday. Arab foreign ministers discussed the plan Monday night at an emergency meeting in Cairo, and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was expected in the region Tuesday.

Egypt’s Foreign Ministry announced the three-step plan starting at 9 a.m. (0600 GMT, 2 a.m. EDT) with a cease-fire to go into effect within 12 hours of “unconditional acceptance” by the two sides. That would be followed by the opening of Gaza’s border crossings and talks in Cairo between the sides within two days, according to the statement.

Gaza’s crossings should be opened for people and goods “once the security situation becomes stable,” according to a copy of the proposal obtained by The Associated Press.

Israel launched the offensive July 8, saying it was a response to weeks of heavy rocket fire out of Hamas-ruled Gaza. The Health Ministry in Gaza said 185 people, including dozens of civilians, have been killed, and more than 1,000 people wounded.

There have been no Israelis killed, although several have been wounded by rocket shrapnel, including two sisters, ages 11 and 13, who were seriously hurt Monday. Ahead of the Egyptian announcement, there appeared to be no slowdown in the fighting, with Hamas for the first time launching an unmanned drone into Israeli airspace that was shot down.

The violence followed the kidnappings and killings of three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank last month, as well as the subsequent kidnapping and killing of a Palestinian teenager in an apparent revenge attack, along with Israeli raids against Hamas militants and infrastructure in the West Bank.

Israeli officials have said the goal of the military campaign is to restore quiet to Israel’s south, which has absorbed hundreds of rocket strikes, and that any cease-fire would have to include guarantees of an extended period of calm.

Hamas officials say they will not accept “calm for calm.” The group is demanding an easing of an Israeli-Egyptian blockade that has ground Gaza’s economy to a standstill and that Israel release dozens of prisoners who were arrested in a recent West Bank crackdown following the abductions of the Israeli youths.

With the death toll mounting, both sides have come under increasing international pressure to halt the fighting.

Egypt Foreign Minister Sameh Shukri said there is “no alternative but return to the truce” of November 2012, and added that Egypt contacted all the parties, including the Palestinian leadership, different Palestinian factions, and Israeli authorities in addition to Arab and international parties. Such contacts led to shaping up the proposal which called for cease-fire.

“Egypt stresses the international responsibility toward what is happening in Palestine,” he said.

In a speech broadcast on Al-Jazeera, Ismail Haniyeh, a Hamas leader in Gaza, confirmed there was “diplomatic movement.”

“The problem is not going back to the agreement on calm because we want this aggression to stop,” he said. “The siege must stop and Gaza people need to live in dignity.”

An Israeli official said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would convene his Security Cabinet on Tuesday morning to discuss the proposal. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.

Naftali Bennett, a member of the Security Cabinet, said he would oppose the proposal, calling it “good for Hamas and bad for Israel.”

“A cease-fire at the present time shows the government’s weakness,” he said in a statement. “A cease-fire now will create a bigger campaign against the south of the country and more rocket attacks in another year.”

Egypt, the first Arab state to reach peace with Israel, often serves as a mediator between Israel and Hamas.

In the 2012 fighting, Egypt’s then-President Mohammed Morsi brokered a cease-fire, leveraging the influence his Muslim Brotherhood held with Hamas, its ally.

That deal included pledges to ease the blockade — promises that Hamas says were never kept. The blockade has greatly restricted movement through Gaza’s Rafah crossing with Egypt — the territory’s main gateway to the outside world — while Israel has restricted the flow of many goods, particularly much-needed construction materials, into Gaza. Israel says Hamas can use things like metal and concrete for military purposes.

Hamas has seen its position further weakened by last year’s military coup in Egypt that ousted Morsi. Egypt’s new leaders have cracked down on Hamas by nearly shuttering a network of smuggling tunnels along the border that were Hamas’ key economic lifeline — and supply route for its weapons.

Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007 from the rival forces of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. With the economy stagnant and Hamas unable to pay the salaries of its thousands of civil servants, the group recently agreed to back a unity government under Abbas’ leadership. But Hamas remains in firm control of Gaza.

Israel and Hamas, which is considered a terrorist group by the West, have battled many times. In the latest round, Israel carried out more than 1,300 airstrikes, along with attacks by naval gunships and artillery forces. Hamas fired hundreds of rockets into Israel.

Israeli military officials say the airstrikes knocked out roughly a third of Hamas’ rocket supply and delivered a blow to the group. It says that roughly 90 of the dead were wanted militants, and it has accused Hamas of using civilians as human shields.

A Hamas drone launched Monday into Israel marked the Islamic militant group’s latest effort to catch the Israeli military off-guard. But like the others, it had little impact on the battlefield.

Israel shot down the drone — named Ababil for a protective flock of birds mentioned in the Quran. Still, the drone represented a new level of sophistication for Hamas, and Israel said it was taking the threat seriously.

It was the first time Hamas has launched a drone into Israel, though military officials say they knew the group has had the technology for some time. Israeli airstrikes in the past have targeted what were believed to be drone facilities in Gaza.

“Hamas is trying everything it can to produce some kind of achievement, and it is crucial that we maintain our high state of readiness,” Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon said. “The shooting down of a drone this morning by our air defense system is an example of their efforts to strike at us in any way possible.”

The hundreds of rockets fired by Hamas disrupted life across Israel. But a new Israeli rocket-defense system has intercepted dozens of projectiles headed toward major cities.

Looking to gain an edge, Hamas has employed tactics not seen before. It has fired rockets deeper than ever into Israel, including weapons it has developed and manufactured in Gaza. Last week, Hamas sent a team of scuba divers on an infiltration mission, but Israel quickly detected the frogmen and killed them outside an army base.

Isaac Ben-Israel, a retired Israeli air force general and a former head of the Israeli space agency, said the Hamas drone was similar to aircraft sent by Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon during a 2006 war.

He said the drone’s capabilities were limited. But “looking to the future, these technologies are becoming more and more available,” he told Channel 10 TV.

Associated Press writers Karin Laub in Gaza City, Gaza Strip, Yousur Alhlour and Ian Deitch in Jerusalem, and Ibrahim Barzak in Amman, Jordan, contributed to this report.

Text:  Courtesy of Jerusalem Post

Agreement of Understanding For a Ceasefire in the Gaza Strip

1: (no title given for this section)

A. Israel should stop all hostilities in the Gaza Strip land, sea and air including incursions and targeting of individuals.

B. All Palestinian factions shall stop all hostilities from the Gaza Strip against Israel including rocket attacks and all attacks along the border.

C. Opening the crossings and facilitating the movements of people and transfer of goods and refraining from restricting residents’ free movements and targeting residents in border areas and procedures of implementation shall be dealt with after 24 hours from the start of the ceasefire.

D. Other matters as may be requested shall be addressed.

2: Implementation mechanisms:

A. Setting up the zero hour for the ceasefire understanding to enter into effect.

B. Egypt shall receive assurances from each party that the party commits to what was agreed upon.

C. Each party shall commit itself not to perform any acts that would breach this understanding. In case of any observations Egypt as the sponsor of this understanding shall be informed to follow up.

 

The 3.7 Billion Request Tells a Bigger Story

Posted on by

The smartest people are those that have their hands dirty in government and time their respective departures when corruption goes to DEFCON levels. Such was the case with Lois Lerner at the IRS, such was the case with White House spokesperson, Robert Gibbs and such was the case with David Axelrod, a White House advisor. Now such is the case with Kathleen Sebelius.

Either these people and others do have a threshold they wont cross when it comes to fraud, lies and collusion or such fraud, lies and collusion in emerging events was just too big to endure. Either way, it is time to focus on Kathlees Sebilius for the matter of the $3.7 billion supplemental for the alien surge at the our southern border.

She timed her departure knowing full well what was ahead, while it was during her tenure at Heath and Human Services that all tracks leading up to the immigrant incursion was about to break wide open.

Now let’s look deeper. On July 8, 2014, the White House wrote a rather comprehensive letter and support document to John Boehner, Speaker of the House asking for $3.7 in funding a solution to an insurgency of the White House’s own making. The emergence of this issue involving costs under the cover of illegal immigration and covering the costs of shortfalls in other agencies originated back in June. The timing of this is no mistake as it does take time to estimate and coordinate conditions, agencies involvement and the ubiquitous bundling of dollars to pay for other items of which is always detailed for the White House Office of Management and Budget. Enter Sylvia Burwell. She was the Director of the White House OMB from 2012-2013 and now she has officially replaced Sebilius.

Now only does Burwell have a handle on financial and economic needs of major programs but she is well aware that the Congressional Budget Office can no longer predict the financial status of Obamacare due mostly in part to the alterations made by edict and Executive Order by Barack Obama himself. However, it is in fact clear that the numbers of enrollees into Obamacare as well as countless other factors prove that Obamacare is not financially stable now or in the future. This is where the $3.7 billion supplemental of the over $4 billion earmarks billions to Health and Human Services to cover short-falls and not for the medical care of illegals flooding into America.

Here is the White House letter and annexed support documents where the clues reveal themselves. Of note is the money to be allocated to fighting fires.

Further, Barack Obama asked Congress Tuesday and the White House opted not to include legislative language calling on the unaccompanied children to be deported more quickly to their home countries. But officials made clear that their intent is to speed the current turnaround process by increasing money for the immigration courts and putting a priority on recent arrivals.

What is behind this border surge is explained here. Going back as far as 1996, the immigration surge has been discussed where those in Congress have chosen to ignore real solutions for at least 18 years, yet the American taxpayer has been footing the bill for refugee resettlement and private organizations have been receiving grant money to play a large role including the Catholic church, such as we are seeing the same today. For a complete study completed in 2008 on the costs, results and effectiveness of the Refugee Resettlement office under HHS go here. The Government Accountability Office performed an intense summary of 2012 and no one is watching, much less interviewing the local stakeholders on the financial and demographic implications at the local level.

In summary, this new supplemental requested by the White House is not only hiding financial shortfalls of other government agencies, this making this a planned and well executed event, favoritism is also at hand here, so America, don’t be fooled with the rhetoric including those that will be deported and that laws are being enforced.

This is madness of epic proportions, while the larger matter is we are in a national security condition that is reaching the red level of the DEFCON alarm system.

If you don’t think we are at DEFCON and this has been a mission by the Obama administration then consider this.

Asylum Claims under the Obama regime.

Leaked Data Shows 10-Fold Increase In Obama’s Asylum Approvals

By: Neil Munroe

The number of foreigners who successfully filed asylum claims in the United States almost tripled from 2012 to 2013, up to 30,393.

That’s 10 times the number from 2008, when President Barack Obama was elected, and it is evidence his immigration officials are agreeing that many people in the growing wave of Central American migrants face a “credible fear” of harm if they are returned. Official approval allows the migrants to file for asylum in immigration court, where judges will approve or reject the asylum request.

If you came illegally to the U.S. seeking asylum in 2013, you had better than a four-in-five chance of successfully filing an asylum claim. That’s up from a three-in-five chance in 2008.

The migrants include mothers with children, and youths who have been brought north by their parents who are living illegally in the United States. Roughly 240,000 migrants — parents, youths and children — are expected to cross the border by the end of September.

The total includes 57,525 unaccompanied youths and children, from October 2013 to June 30, 2014, according to DHS. Because of a 2008 law, unaccompanied youths from countries other than Mexico and Canada don’t have to pass the “credible fear” hurdle, but can directly file asylum cases in immigration courts.

Legislators urged more care in granting asylum after the media reported that the father of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, successfully applied for asylum in 2002.

The internal federal data from the Department of Homeland Security was provided to The Daily Caller by a source.

It shows that officials endorsed 3,097 asylum requests in the year up to Sept. 30, 2008 — dubbed fiscal year 2008 — to people who said they faced a “credible fear” of persecution if they were repatriated.

Obama took office in January 2009, and officials approved 3,411 “credible fear” approvals in the next 12 months, up to the end of September in 2009.

Officials approved another 6,293 in the next 12 months, and another 9,423 in the next 12 months, ending September 2011.